Talk:The Two Georges (painting)
Victoria, in the Two Georges timeline, is what is known as Washington, DC in OTL. I don't know how to do a Disambiguation page so I can't fix the incorrect reference to Victoria BC in this article. ML4E 02:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Interesting. Page 28 of the paperback states that Pitt was PM at the time of the painting and North was his successor. Yet Pitt was PM 1764 to 1768 and Lord North was PM from 1770 to 1782. This means the events in the painting occured before 1776. ML4E 19:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Or we have an inconsistency, which I find somewhat more plausible. (It's been years since I read the book.) TR 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Well, Washington's title at the time was Colonel which suggests the POD was well before the declaration of independence. How early could it have been, given the list of famous people in the painting? ML4E 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC) :If going strictly by Washington's rank, 1775 would be the earliest, which obviously is before the Declaration. That makes sense in the context of the story. :But if Pitt was PM at the time of the painting, that would mean the painting was done in 1768 at the latest, which makes this particular POD problematical. What the hell happened in 1768 that would require this particular meeting, and avert the WFI? :Would the Stamp Act have been enough?TR 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC) I didn't know much about this period of history and so did a bit of googling. Pitt's time as PM was so short because his ill health led to his resignation. Also, he made his reputation as Foreign Minister during the Seven Years War but when he was PM, his poor health left him detached from events including those in the colonies. It let some other ministers pass the tea and stamp taxes without consulting him. So how is this as a POD? His health is better so he 1) lasts longer as PM and 2) he more closely runs the government and so, along with his experience in foreign affairs, allows him to decrease the irritants that lead to the American Revolutionary War. Instead, a more conciliatory approach leads to the creation of the North American Union which co-exists within the British Empire. ML4E 02:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC) How about uploading a copy of this painting? Turtle Fan 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Can't, its a fictitious painting only found in The Two Georges timeline. The paperback cover art has George Washington beside George III but not in the way its described in the book. We all know how accurate cover art is anyway. ML4E More on the POD I glanced at the description of the painting looking for something else and noticed that Kathleen Flannery says that "almost anyone who was anyone in England in the 1760s is there the painting, regardless of whether he was at the ceremony". I had mentioned that before but had skipped over the date. It definitely looks like HT had a POD in mind, although not explicitly stated, well before the declaration of independence. ML4E 07:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Does a picture of the painting exist? Is there a picture of the painting in the book? EoGuy99 21:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC) See the last paragraph of the first section. As I said there, the cover of the paperback has both Georges as a faux painting but it is not consistent with the description in the book and even if it were, it would be a detail rather than the full painting. ML4E 22:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC) : I have the hardback book and Dreyfus and Turtledove are on the back cover. Oh well. EoGuy99 22:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Lit. Comm. "The fictional painting is described as showing a large gathering of men, and seems to resemble John Trumbull's famous painting ..." Only in the most general way in that it is a large gathering of the famous. The focus of the painting is Washington being presented to George III and bowing before his sovereign. The Trumbull painting is focusing on the DoI with a number of famous faces (like T2G painting) surrounding a table the document is resting on. ML4E (talk) 00:32, February 10, 2016 (UTC) New category? There could probably be a useful "works of art" category. This painting, the Sacred Cod, and there's probably something scroungeable to round out a third entry.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 02:53, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :There's a description in CCH of a painting of Anne Colleton by Marcel Duchamp. We could maybe whip up an article on it, but I feel like creating an article just to fill a proposed category would be the mountain going to Mohammed. :Wasn't there specific reference to "Nude Descending a Staircase" in AF, though? Turtle Fan (talk) 03:45, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::There was. Someone even stole the OTL New York Times criticism by calling it an explosion in a shingle factory. TR (talk) 04:31, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::Ah yes, that was Cassius. I thought that a shingle factory was a bit too outside of his life experiences to make his comment seem quite natural. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:44, March 21, 2016 (UTC) :::The staircase reference probably is already significantly covered in Marcel Duchamp. As is the fictitious Anne Colleton portrait. I don't think they merit their own articles. There's probably some painting or sculpture already in this wiki that will jump out at us at some point. Meanwhile, it seems that The Two Georges and the Sacred Cod should have something besides their categories. It'll come to us before long, most likely.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 04:56, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::I think most artworks that exist in OTL are more likely to be covered in an artist's page, or in an Allusions section. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:44, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::Likewise, fictional paintings tend not to be significant in themselves but tend to be tied to the artist. T2G is an exception and I suppose its theft is the reason so any other pilfered art would probably require the creation of an article to distinguish it from the artist. Otherwise, not so much. ML4E (talk) 23:22, March 21, 2016 (UTC) ::::Could The Little Mermaid (statue) round out the category?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 02:45, March 22, 2016 (UTC) :::::Huh, what an oddball article. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:23, March 22, 2016 (UTC) :::::I have a better idea. The selection is so weak that it would be better to just leave them uncatalogued. ML4E (talk) 18:43, March 22, 2016 (UTC) ::::::I'm leaning that way myself. It was a good idea, but given how little info on the visual arts we have on the Wiki (as opposed to books, plays, songs, and movies) this category probably won't ever fly. Turtle Fan (talk) 23:29, March 22, 2016 (UTC) :::::::Let's hold off. You never know, HT might do some art heavy piece. But it's an insubstantial category. TR (talk) 03:51, March 23, 2016 (UTC) :::::::I found another one: Omphalos.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:30, April 10, 2016 (UTC) ::::::::The Omphalos is a religious artifact not a work of art. Many Christan (and other religions too) have beautifully crafted religious objects such as crucifixes or altars (or even whole churches) but those are not for purposes of art. They are for rituals. I agree something like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel would be an artwork but not something like the Omphalos. I will add the "Religion" cat though. ML4E (talk) 20:04, April 10, 2016 (UTC) :::::::::While this is an ambiguous case, I've seen many an item in one art museum or another over the years that was designed primarily as a worship aid. And this is especially true of collections based on antiquity. If we say that a thing counts as a work of art if it was designed only to be appreciated for its artistic merits, we'd be using an extremely constrained definition that's not even in vogue among professional curators and dealers and art historians and so on. In fact, the 2G painting itself might not even count; it was produced as political propaganda. :::::::::That's not to say I'm interested in resurrecting Jonathan's proposed category, but I do believe your standard is too limiting. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:21, April 11, 2016 (UTC)